Posts from Harry Potter...

Severus should be exactly like that - with long, greasy hair.

We're not talking about him. Surprisingly, he's quite cute there, which again doesn't quite match the book's depiction.

Voldemort - with an ugly snake-like head.

He just looks pathetic; he doesn't have a "cold, piercing gaze of red eyes"; he just looks like a beaten dog, like a circus freak. Oh yes! Well, maybe "you can't see that in motion, of course."

Dumbledore - with a long beard and glasses.

And in a damn skullcap. Why is that?

I don't remember the description of the others.

For example...
Harry's aunt - a Soviet school teacher. In the book, she's a blonde; in the movie, her hair is mouse-colored.
Draco's mother - in the book, "almost a beautiful blonde, if it weren't for her contemptuously twisted face"; in the photo, it's Sergei Rost from "Modern" made up to look like a woman.
The red-haired father - "thin, wearing glasses, with a receding hairline." In the movie, he's a chubby, nondescript neighbor-alcoholic in some damn onion-shaped hat and with a dirty face. Without glasses, of course.
Mad Eye - a face with scars, gray hair, a magical eye, a broken nose. In the movie, he's a cheerful fat man, looking exactly like the guy who plays in silly comedies, like in "School of Rock," I don't remember his name; with a pirate eye patch.
Neville Longbottom - "a round-faced grandson"; in the movie, he's a skinny nerd with protruding rat-like teeth.

And the list could go on for quite a while; there are many such things.

Although, like in the game, there are sometimes inconsistencies in the wording of the book...

Morni, that's just youthful maximalism talking. If you judge a film adaptation based on how well it copies the characters, then no film can be called good. They primarily choose actors based on their acting skills and conduct auditions. Of course, the director's personal likes and dislikes also play a role. In my opinion, "Game of Thrones" is an example of a successful book adaptation. Adapting a written work into a film is an incredibly difficult task. The Strugatsky brothers rewrote the screenplay for "Roadside Picnic" several times, and what was the result? Brrr... Nothing remained of Redrick Schuhart. And how distorted was "Night Watch" on film? And how are the faces of real historical figures changed...? Alexander the Great was a cruel conqueror with a harsh, unattractive face, but on screen, he's just a pretty boy. Is this the man who conquered the entire world? Don't make me laugh. When I started reading "Game of Thrones," I was even surprised that the plotline almost didn't suffer during the adaptation. Although the sixth film is already just a shoddy piece of work. And it's not about the makeup. The acting is gone. It's as if there was only enough film for one take. They read the lines and left. 2. Vegtam, in the book, I'm interested in its content. Of course, it's entertaining reading and is published for profit.

with a stern, unattractive face, on screen he just looks like a nice guy.

Have you seen Alexander the Great in person? If not, then there's no point in talking about what he was like.

Compare it to the quality of the film adaptations of "The Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars," and only then justify the poor casting choices.

When I started reading "Harry Potter," I was even surprised that the plotline almost didn't suffer in the adaptation.

In my opinion, it's the opposite, and it's getting worse. Now they're sitting in class and waving wands, and a moment later, a boy is sneaking around the library at night in an invisibility cloak for some unclear reason. It's exactly the kind of situation where "if you don't read it, you won't understand anything."

Alexander the Great was a cruel conqueror with a harsh, unattractive face.

Of course not. He was more like a sweet, skinny boy with big ambitions.

the quality of the Lord of the Rings movie adaptation

A very, very bad "adaptation," with poor casting choices and distortions of the plot.

He was just a sweet, skinny boy with big ambitions.

We don't know what he was like; we didn't see him and can't make any claims. What is written in books, depicted in pictures, and sculpted may not necessarily reflect reality.

A very, very bad "adaptation," with poor casting choices and distortions of the plot.

Why?

Nebko, please stop.

Am I saying something wrong?

Why?

Let's start with the plot, taking a couple of examples:
1. The plot was drastically shortened; Beorn and Bombadil were simply removed, even though both characters are charming and memorable.
2. At the same time, it's not entirely clear why this was necessary, especially since the plot was expanded with elements that weren't in the book, such as the Arwen/Aragorn storyline. This was only mentioned in the book's appendices, but it was absent from the main text.

The film itself is not bad, but as an adaptation, it failed.

We don't know what he was like, we didn't see him, and we can't say anything for sure. What is written in books, drawn in pictures, and sculpted may not reflect reality.

I believe what is sculpted. There was no reason for contemporaries to distort reality. Besides, I don't know any sweet-looking boy who could lead more than one person. :)

Stalin – a sweet boy??? Ha-ha-ha!
stalinism.narod.ru/vieux/foto/foto.htm – here you can find more of his photos from before 1917. Take a closer look.

Stalin – a sweet boy??? Ha-ha!

We don’t know what he was like, we didn’t see him, and we can’t claim anything, and what is written in books, depicted in pictures, and sculpted, may not necessarily reflect reality.

Count Dooku instead of Saruman... that’s going too far.

I don't understand what's so funny about it?

I provided a link to his photo above. He has a very determined look on his face, as befits the organizer of the robbery of the Tbilisi bank. He wouldn't panic at the first sign of trouble. A knife to the ribs – and the matter is settled.

stalinism.narod.ru/vieux/foto/foto.htm

Guys, don't open it, it contains a virus!